Proof texts for anti-intellectualism

In his book Think John Piper gives a detailed exegesis of two key passages that are often used to justify anti-intellectualism within Christianity

[Jesus said]
“I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children"
Luke 10:21-24

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 1:20-24

Piper's conclusion is that the real issue here is attitude, it not intelligence versus "simplicity" but rather pride versus humility. Children represent humility and dependance. Wisdom here represents the arrogance of Greek wisdom/scholarship which exalted man. There are intelligent people who are humble and "simple" people who are proud. It is also not an issue of educated versus uneducated.

The question is who is exalted: God or man? A key part of hearing and believing the Gospel means being humble enough to acknowledge that one cannot save oneself. Only God can save us.

The theological significance of the Higgs boson

is nil.

Yesterday's announcement of the much awaited discovery of the Higgs boson will lead to a lot of hype, including claims that it presents some problem for belief in God, and particularly in a Creator. The Higgs boson has even been dubbed "The God particle", largely as a marketing exercise.
I find this ridiculous. This discovery is of no greater theological or philosophical significance than most other important scientific discoveries: the structure of DNA, the Genetic code, pions, neutrinos, positrons, quarks, pulsars, Einstein's theories of relativity, .....

These discoveries just show that we can understand and describe the natural world. (Indeed, a truly amazing thing). Sometimes we can do this well enough that we can even predict the results of experiments, including the existence of new particle or a new planet. However, this success neither proves nor disproves the existence of a Creator. Science, by assumption, is methodologically naturalistic. These were the same issues discussed by Laplace and Napoleon, centuries ago.

An earlier post explored similar issues associated with the Higgs boson.

In awe of hummingbirds

I am currently in Telluride, Colorado for a science workshop, and a few days ago I saw a hummingbird down by the creek. Earlier on this trip, in Washington state I also saw one frequently at a bird feeder (just sugar water). We do not have them in Australia.

To me they are the most amazing creatures. I am in awe that such a small being can hover like a miniature helicopter and then speed off like a jet.

Reading the excellent Wikipedia page a little I learnt they are the only birds that can fly backwards! Although only 8-13cm long, they can fly at speeds in excess of 50 km per hour. Their flight mechanism is distinct, intermediate between that of other birds and insects. During courtship displays their wings can beat at rates up to 100 beats per second. While in flight, hummingbirds have the highest metabolism of all animals. Most migrate annually thousands of kilometers from North America to spend the winter in northern Mexico.

Wow! What an amazing world God has created for us to live in!
We should not lose sight of this as we struggle to understand the mechanisms whereby this came to be.
Psalm 104

What is real tolerance?

I am starting to read Faiths in Conflict: Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World by Vinoth Ramachandra. It is interesting to see how he defines tolerance (p. 121):

To tolerate a belief or practice surely implies
(a) we recognize that belief or practice to be genuinely different from our own
(b) we disagree with the belief (or disapprove of the practice)
(c) we do not coerce or absorb the others into ourselves, but give social or legal space for the other to flourish.

I find it interesting because it acknowledges differences and does not aim to minimise them. Compare, for example, the platitude, "All religions are really about the same thing." Furthermore, it allows public disagreement and debate, while respecting others and their views.

This seems very different from postmodern sensibilities which seem to equate "tolerance" with a demand for the public acknowledgement of the validity of other views.

Muddling through life

I watched The Descendants, starring George Clooney in an uncharacteristically "uncool" role, as a struggling father and husband.
I enjoyed it but do find myself uncomfortable being a "voyeur" watching other people's pain and family problems, particularly when they are believable.

Unlike most Hollywood movies, it portrayed marriage, family, and fidelity in a positive light. At end I thought there was a strong message about the need for forgiveness.

An interesting review by Roger Ebert highlights the connections between the development of Clooney's character as a father and a custodian of the land.

Is ethics rooted in eschatology?

I am enjoying the reading through Ethics of Hope by Jurgen Moltmann. In the beginning of Chapter 1 he states:

Every Christian ethics is determined by a presupposed eschatology. In differing ethical decisions we must always deal not only with differing ethical conceptions but also with fundamental theological decisions in eschatology, and then in Christology. In this chapter we will make this clear form an apocalyptic eschatology, a christological eschatology, a separistic eschatology, and a transformative eschatology.

I am not sure what is the basis of these bold claims. It may become apparent later in the book.

With regard to the different eschatologies Moltmann argues the first three are inadequate and he favours a transformative one.

Apocalyptic is rooted in the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (church and state). The state is seen as an instrument for law and justice. Moltmann makes the extreme claims (p. 12):

According to the doctrine of the two kingdoms, in worldly structures the Christian acts no differently from other poeple, appropriately and rationally. But that makes him invisible. So in worldly life Christians become anonymous. There is no plan for a specifically and distinguishable Christian ethics.

He further argues that central to apocalyptic eschatology is the notion of the cathechon 
(2 Thess. 2:7-8) concerning the one who restrains the man of lawlessness. This then leads to Armageddon and bizarre ideas such as associated with The Late Great Planet Earth and Hal Lindsey.

A Christological eschatology stems from a Calvinist Kingdom of God theology and finds its most sophisticated expression in Karl Barth. The death and resurrection of Jesus have established the Kingdom of God and "hardly anything is left for a futurist eschatology except the universal unveiling of what God has already brought in Christ." (p.23)

A Separatist eschatology has its roots in the Anabaptists and Stanley Hauerwas is characterised as its modern exponent.

Aside: In 1964 Karl Barth wrote Moltmann a letter criticising his book Theology of Hope and the central role that eschatology played in his theology.

Language and reality

Previously I posted about the limitations of analogy in science and theology. Related to this is the limitations of language. One should be wary about assigning too much meaning to the terminology that scientists may ascribe to technically well defined entities: chaos, colour of quarks, local realism, disorder, .....

A simple example is the notion of "imaginary" vs. "real" numbers (these are "complex" numbers).
The "imaginary" numbers do exist, just as fractional numbers are "real" and exist. For a mathematical and logical argument see here. Furthermore, imaginary numbers (and complex) numbers can represent real physical quantities such as the phase and amplitude of an electrical signal.